Re: Do elephants exist?

Mesmerising! Yes, Serpent, really lovely. It was also fascinating to hear arrangements that, as well as admiring such abilities, manage to keep something of what is hoped for as well as add the surprise of a different sort of atmosphere that works so well in a new way- thanks, Reg! The young sir seemed to go his own stylish way in places that was fun too and still really enjoyable! I think I’ll be losing many hours to listening to more and more!

Apologies to the OP particularly considering the discussion about the sad state for elephants.

Re: Do elephants exist?

Define “elephant” and “exist” then present the context/s within which you wish us to answer.

I have no trouble saying elephants exist in the common understanding of those words. When it comes to asking about demarcations between elephant and non-elephant, and/or existing and non-existing I am very wary.

The when we consider the word “elephant” above the phenomenon of an elephant things are even more fuzzy depending on how you choose to regard the relationship between words, communal communication, culture and the “raw” phenomenon (the physical experience of “elephant” - be it on TV or riding one through a river.)

No matter the experience of “elephant” the concept of “elephant” is necessarily a shared one that is acute enough to allow to begin to answer the question posed.

Existence is what appears to be the interaction of experience and if I were to get more pedantic I could simply say any experience is existence and existence is experience. Even the hypothetical has experiential substance in the moment.

If this reply doesn’t suffice, or goes beyond the bounds of “lounge” appropriate talk then copy and post in epistemology/anything philiosophy I guess and take me up on it there ... anyway still on holiday and looking forward to telling you about my strange observations.

Re: Do elephants exist?

"When it comes to asking about demarcations between elephant and non-elephant, and/or existing and non-existing I am very wary."

....which made me snicker. Wouldn't "elephant" fit nicely with Kripke's direct reference theory, being a rigid designator that applies across all possible worlds? I mean, isn't the demarcation quite clear and obvious?

Not to the pedant (aka “philosopher”) :P

In addition the “problem” can be extended to ask what “demarcation” means. Seriously, there is use in taking that route, but in my experience it is generally useless in constrictive dialogue - I tend to keep it to myself because it’s not the kind of territory that can be communally tangible (and now I soudn liek an arse! Haha!)